The question is whether we will be there to answer it. This Sunday, LDS bishops all over California will read, from the pulpit, a letter signed by the First Presidency, (First Presidency Letter) directed to each and every member of the Church in California. The letter reads (the added links are mine–not the First Presidency):

To: General Authorities, Area Seventies, and the following in California: Stake and Mission Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents

[To be read in sacrament meeting on June 29, 2008]

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

Sincerely Yours,

Thomas S. Monson

Henry B. Eyring

Deiter F. Uchtdorf

We are not being asked to leave our homes and material possessions in the dead of winter to walk over a thousand miles of frozen wilderness to relocate the Church. We are only being asked to do all we can to support the proposed constitutional amendment, by donating our time and means to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as the institution it was designed by Deity to be: between a man and a woman.

You can read more about the amendment and this movement at its official website:

I suspect there will be further information forthcoming from Church leaders here in California about what specifically we will be asked to do.

Make no mistake, however, we will ridiculed, scorned, and belittled by all manner of opponents, including by members of our own Church, particularly here in the Bloggernacle. ( For a sampling see here ). We will be described as intolerant, as bigots, and as homophobes. Why? Because we want to exercise our First Amendment Rights to practice our religious beliefs, and free speech. Be prepared for this onslaught, for it will surely come.

The main stream media will and already has picked up the story. The San Francisco Chronicle is running an article today on the subject. This article, is actually quite factual, and objective–but others in the future may not be:

The Mormon Church, a major backer of the 2000 ballot measure that reaffirmed California’s ban on same-sex marriage, is asking its members to “do all you can” to support a November initiative that would reinstate the ban as a state constitutional amendment.

“The church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God,” the church’s governing First Presidency said in a letter to be read Sunday to all congregations in California. It urges members to donate “your means and time” to the ballot measure campaign.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which estimates its California membership at 750,000, is one of the largest and best-organized of several denominations expected to be active in the initiative campaign.

The Chronicle points out that the Church’s involvement in this moral debate is not only legal, but an appropriate exercise of protected religious freedom:

It’s all legal, says the Internal Revenue Service. Long-standing federal law prohibits churches and charities from endorsing or opposing political candidates, at the risk of their tax-exempt status. But they are free to work for or against legislation, including ballot measures, as long as they don’t devote a substantial part of their activities to those efforts.

The distinction between candidate endorsements and legislative activity is based on free speech and freedom of religion, said Ellen Aprill, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles. She said proposed laws may raise moral issues that touch “what churches and religious organizations think are at the core of their mission.”

Here in the Bloggernacle, Geoff B at Millennial Star has already posted a couple of good posts on the subject. I encourage you to read them both:

I am certain there will be other less supportive posts as time goes along. While I am the weakest of those who are or who can be called a saint, I will do what I can to support the First Presidency’s call and support this amendment. I encourage all California saints to do likewise.

Like this:

Related

65 Responses to “California Saints To Get The Call”

I wrote this comment at BCC, and I am pasting it here, only because I ask the same question:

The major issue I have with this is that the First Presidency doesn’t explain itself, its rationale for why this particular situation is a threat to “traditional marriage.” I found the following from President Hinckley in November 1998:

Question 2: What is your Church’s attitude toward homosexuality?

In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.

It would be a logical fallacy for me to point out that numerous other heterosexual things “make light” of the “very serious and sacred foundation” of marriage. So I won’t. But I’d like a deeper explanation as to why this is such a threat to traditional marriage. I’d also like to know if the church has been vocal and made efforts in other countries on this same issue. After all, morality is a universal principle. Do we stand for it everywhere, or only where we can politically?

“18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.” – 1 Nephi 1:18

If you’re living in Jerusalem at the time you don’t waste time asking Lehi exactly how the destruction would be brought about. You recognize that he is a prophet, recognize that he is delivering a warning, and you act on it.

Regarding your second question, I believe the leaders of our church to be wise and inspired men who will pick their battles carefully with the overall goal in mind.

If you look at that particular verse carefully, Nephi writes that Lehi “began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he hath both seen and heard.” So Lehi was already telling them everything he knew.

I think anyone exercising their First Amendment right to talk about this should be prepared to have other people doing the same thing for the other side without having to cry and whine about those people being anti-Mormon or anti-religion.

As I am mocked for certain views in Utah, I would expect to be mocked for supporting this amendment in certain parts of California.

There is no indication that Lehi knew exactly how they would be destroyed. But let’s say that God told him exactly how the city would be overcome and Lehi explained it all to them. Would the following exchange make any logical sense whatsoever?:

“You know, I believe that you really are a prophet and God has told you that we will be destroyed by an enemy scaling our northern walls at night. But still I think in this case that God is wrong because our wall is really high and we have sentries. So there is no threat there.”

In other words knowing the exact method of destruction is irrelevant. All that matters is the question of whether or not he is a prophet. If he isn’t then he is just a senile rambler and whatever mad reason for the destruction doesn’t matter. But if he is a prophet then it won’t matter if you know and understand the source of the destruction, it’s going to come whether you get it or not.

It isn’t irrelevant. It gives one more information to make his own informed choice as to whether or not to listen. And maybe the answer in this case is not for the prophet to explain himself, but for the listener to plead to God for more answers.

In my own case, after President Hinckley’s “War and Peace” support of the Iraq War, I have a hard time taking the word of the prophet at face value. I want to know more of what he knows before I make my own choice.

10 Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?
11 Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.

I have been quite troubled since I first heard about this. I completely disagree with the stand the Church is taking. Having said that, if the issue ever moves to Oregon, I will support the 1st Pres in what is asked, even if that simply means to keep my opinions to myself. So far in online blogs and discussions I have been a little too vocal, I fear, and haven’t been able to keep my opinions to myself, though. The thing I am most struggling with is if it is indeed a moral issue, then that makes it all the harder to go against my personal moral beliefs – it almost seems immoral to do so. But at the same time, I also believe in sustaining the prophet. In this case for me, sustaining the prophet would trump my personal beliefs, even at the risk of alienating myself from friends and loved ones.

Let’s be perfectly clear. This post is inaccurate. The constitutional amendment is not about protecting our First Amendment right to practice and promote our religious beliefs. The right of the LDS Church to deny homosexuals marriage within our faith and to preach that homosexual activity is immoral is unassailed. The amendment would deny other faiths which believe homosexuality is morally acceptable from performing those marriages. Thus this amendment is about denying others their First Amendment right to practice their religious beliefs. If you believe that is ethically valid, fine. But don’t be misleading about the nature of what you are attempting.

“We will be described as intolerant, as bigots, and as homophobes. Why? Because we want to exercise our First Amendment Rights to practice our religious beliefs, and free speech.”

I don’t understand how our ability or rights to practice our religious beliefs are affected by the court ruling in California, or how the proposed constitutional change would provide a better environment for exercising our First Amendment Rights to practice said religious beliefs.

The whole issue of the Lord’s will and the thinking of a prophet is a tricky one. Take the instance of the 1978 revelation giving all worthy males the priesthood. Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s apology is very instructive. He blames the previous thinking on the “limited knowledge” that they had, and that a sudden revelation completely changed over 100 years of Brigham Young-induced tradition and policy. So was the Lord’s will, and the truth, during those 100 years that blacks were not allowed the priesthood because they were sons of Cain? Was that really the “mark” on Cain? A skin of blackness? The only reason I bring this up (because I don’t want to go on that tangent) is that what a prophet believes is highly influenced by the generation he is from. Brigham Young was a product of his time. Gordon B. Hinckley believed the neo-conservative rationale behind the war in Iraq, as terrible as that war has been for our country.

Science today has revealed much about the world around us that previous generations did not have a knowledge about. The Lord’s truth and science are compatible. They are in harmony. The evidences of science are leaning strongly in favor of the notion that gays had little to no choice in their emotional leanings.

What would it mean in terms of what is a “sin” if gays can’t choose otherwise? Why should they be punished for that which they didn’t have a choice in? I realize life is hardly fair, but in terms of eternal salvation, we are taught that we shall be held accountable for our sins, the choices we willingly make.

In looking and pondering, and even praying, on this, I honestly cannot see where the threat to “traditional marriage” is on this issue. Is it too much to ask from my prophet that he clarify his position?

Nick,
That’s not a fair characterization of the opposition to same sex marriage. SSM opponents are not seeking to use state power to coerce any action on the part of any person. Rather, they are seeking to prevent a change in the way the civil institution of marriage is defined. That is a far cry from seeking to “make the rest of society practice [their] religious beliefs.”

It would be fair to say that many SSM opponents want to prevent a change that would grant state sanction to relationships that are contrary to their religious beliefs, and it’s certainly debatable whether that is a wise or good motive for citizens to have. But it’s still a far cry from seeking to make anyone practice anything.

It is an outright lie, originally fashioned by evangelical propagandists, to claim that marriage has been “redefined” in California. In fact, it is the opponents of marriage equality who are attempting to “redefine” marriage, in such a way as to transform a traditional restriction into a constitutional restriction, so as to deny equal treatment under the law to a minority group.

No honest person can deny that the proposed amendment seeks to define marriage. The California Supreme Court’s ruling, on the other hand, does nothing to redefine marriage. The court simply found that equal treatment under the civil law requires that the existing institution be equally available to same-sex couples.

“The only reason I bring this up (because I don’t want to go on that tangent) is that what a prophet believes is highly influenced by the generation he is from.”

We’re all products of our time which has an impact on what teachings and commandments are given and what God expects of us. But to just assume that something will change simply because something else did is unwise. Perhaps it will, perhaps it won’t, but it hasn’t yet so until that day you’re expected to follow the light that has been revealed. If you believe you’ve received personal revelation that contradicts the church then you’d better be right, and remember that you have no authority to teach it to others as revelation. If God wanted them to have it then he’d give it to them, or to the church in general.

“Gordon B. Hinckley believed the neo-conservative rationale behind the war in Iraq, as terrible as that war has been for our country.”

Are you really letting your political beliefs strangle your spiritual knowledge? Is the Iraq situation really that black and white to you? I disagree with your assessment of the impact of Iraq but for the sake of the argument let’s say it’s an irrecoverable disaster that we’ve hopelessly lost. Why do you assume that President Hinckley would only have said what he did if he knew the result would be America (and the peaceful Iraqis) winning? We are not living in the millennium and there will be a lot of upheaval before then. We don’t know what the eventual impact of current choices will have. That is where prophets come in handy as they help us stay on the path that leads to the ultimate destination where God wants us to be. But there is going to be war and death and pain in the meantime.

“What would it mean in terms of what is a “sin” if gays can’t choose otherwise? Why should they be punished for that which they didn’t have a choice in?”

Are you arguing that we are unable to control our sexual actions? Men that aren’t attracted to women aren’t the only people on earth that are seemingly “punished” with a chaste life. Everyone has challenges, some of those include not being able to share the intimacy that others do, why is that surprising or out of order of the rest of life which you acknowledged is unfair in this telestial world? What’s worse, not being able to have sex or not being able to walk, or talk, or see? We’ve all got our burden’s, that does not justify sin. God has been clear that sexual intimacy is only allowed between husband and wife.

“In looking and pondering, and even praying, on this, I honestly cannot see where the threat to “traditional marriage” is on this issue. Is it too much to ask from my prophet that he clarify his position?”

In all frankness, I don’t think there is anything that could be said to convince you. You have no reason to take my advice but I’ll give it to you anyway. Swallow your pride, ignore your political biases, and follow the prophet on this one. I think President Eyring’s “Strength in Counsel” message of the month is very timely:

“Sometimes we will receive counsel that we cannot understand or that seems not to apply to us, even after careful prayer and thought. Don’t discard the counsel, but hold it close. If someone you trusted handed you what appeared to be nothing more than sand with the promise that it contained gold, you might wisely hold it in your hand awhile, shaking it gently. Every time I have done that with counsel from a prophet, after a time the gold flakes have begun to appear, and I have been grateful.”

“The California Supreme Court’s ruling, on the other hand, does nothing to redefine marriage.”

Other than make it legal for men to marry men and women to marry women of course.

You’re playing word games. Before the court decision marriages were always man + woman. The court changed that to allow men to marry men and women to marry women. Call it what you will, the court forced a undesired change on marriage in California.

If the people decide that this is not their intention, that they do not want their law to be twisted to force this result, then their only recourse is an amendment. The motive behind the amendment is to put the definition of marriage outside the hands of activist judges.

Not in the least. I honestly believe that President Hinckley misrepresented scripture in defending the war in Iraq. If you want, I’ll make that argument on my blog and you can read it there. I’d like to think that he was speaking the will of the Lord, but he said himself that it was his own opinion.

That is where prophets come in handy as they help us stay on the path that leads to the ultimate destination where God wants us to be. But there is going to be war and death and pain in the meantime.

Maybe I had a poor expectation of what it means to be a Christian in the latter days, because I honestly believed (and hopelessly still do) that a Christian does NOT go to war with others, that a Christian does everything he can in his power to STOP warfare, not endorse or condone it. But alas, it seems, I have two thousand years of Christian tradition going against me. And alas, Mormons have gotten caught up in it too.

Are you arguing that we are unable to control our sexual actions? Men that aren’t attracted to women aren’t the only people on earth that are seemingly “punished” with a chaste life.

But Aluwid, heterosexuals have a way out, a method to control those desires, to ensure they are not “sinning.” It is called “marriage.” What way out do you give homosexuals? Do you compel them to a life of celibacy? Of fake heterosexual love?

What’s worse, not being able to have sex or not being able to walk, or talk, or see?

Are you married Aluwid? Have you made love to a woman yet? There is a vast difference in expressing love to walking, talking, or seeing. You put far too much weight on the latter three, and too little on the power and passion of love.

Swallow your pride, ignore your political biases, and follow the prophet on this one

In the end, I probably will. But I will expect more openness and communication from my prophet than he has given to this point. Sadly, he does not have the benefit of the doubt in my eyes anymore.

“But not all light is revealed exclusively through the prophets. Much of our understanding of the world around us has come from multiple other sources outside of the prophets, and it is still light.”

Yes, but if it contradicts revealed truth then chances are it isn’t light.

“Maybe I had a poor expectation of what it means to be a Christian in the latter days, because I honestly believed (and hopelessly still do) that a Christian does NOT go to war with others, that a Christian does everything he can in his power to STOP warfare, not endorse or condone it.”

We do what we have to do. Look on the bright side, you can be an Anti-Nephi-Lehi as long as you have plenty of Nephites around to protect you. In the end we’ll all hopefully be in heaven together, but in the meantime we’ll each do what we were made to do.

“But Aluwid, heterosexuals have a way out, a method to control those desires, to ensure they are not “sinning.””

Attractive, rich, or lucky heterosexuals yes. But just because you desire the opposite sex, doesn’t mean that God has blessed you with the qualities that ensure that the opposite sex wants you back.

“There is a vast difference in expressing love to walking, talking, or seeing. You put far too much weight on the latter three, and too little on the power and passion of love.”

You’re clearly a romantic, but sexual attraction is not needed in order to express love. Even in the worst case, with no sex, they can still have love, solace, and comfort in one another. That is not a life of misery, and a desire to avoid it is no excuse for sin.

The major issue I have with this is that the First Presidency doesn’t explain itself.

Doesn’t explain itself? Ok . . . well, I’m not certain the FP has an obligation to explain itself to each and every member of a 13 million member Church.

This is really not a difficult issue. The First Presidency has reiterated a long established doctrinal teaching as embodied in the Proclamation to the World and other pronouncements on marriage, family, and sexuality. As members of the Church we are free to choose to have opinions that contradict the official teachings and doctrines of the Church. We are also free to choose to act or not act in accordance with requests by the First Presidency as they relate to those teachings and doctrines.

Whether you hold personal opinions about gay marriage that harmonize with those official teachings of the Church is not the point. The point is whether you are willing to set them aside when specifically asked in a written letter under the signature of the First Presidency. Or, in the alternative, whether you feel that your own insights and experience are superior to those whose divine calling it is to proclaim Doctrine for the Church.

We all have to choose. It doesn’t really matter whether the First Presidency has sufficiently explained themselves to you or anyone else in particular in order for their counsel to be the right counsel.

jjohnsen #5

Some who talk about this issue from the other side, however, will be anti-religious and anti-Mormon. Pointing that out is not whining or crying. For those who are not anti-religious or anti-Mormon, I welcome the dialogue and exercise of First Amendment freedoms.

green mormon architect #10

In this case for me, sustaining the prophet would trump my personal beliefs, even at the risk of alienating myself from friends and loved ones.

Good choice.
Theodoric #11

The constitutional amendment is not about protecting our First Amendment right to practice and promote our religious beliefs.

You misunderstand. The First Amendment guarantees the Church and its membership the right to speak out on these issues as moral issues. I did not say the proposed amendment protects our First Amendment rights.

Thus this amendment is about denying others their First Amendment right to practice their religious beliefs. If you believe that is ethically valid, fine. But don’t be misleading about the nature of what you are attempting.

No so. Not every action cloaked in religious freedom is constitutionally protected. Your grasp of constitutional law here is a bit off.
Mark N. #12

I don’t understand how our ability or rights to practice our religious beliefs are affected by the court ruling in California, or how the proposed constitutional change would provide a better environment for exercising our First Amendment Rights to practice said religious beliefs.

Maybe I’m missing something.

Maybe, I just phrased it poorly. My point was only that those who oppose gay marriage, and support the Church’s stand are exercising their rights to do so. We are not and should not be considered as a knee jerk reaction to be homophobes, intolerant, or just plain stupid.

Nick #15:

To the contrary, you want to make the rest of society practice your religion’s beliefs.

Not so. I want to keep a rather small but very vocal minority from re-defining marriage for all of society.

#17

It is an outright lie, originally fashioned by evangelical propagandists, to claim that marriage has been “redefined” in California. In fact, it is the opponents of marriage equality who are attempting to “redefine” marriage, in such a way as to transform a traditional restriction into a constitutional restriction, so as to deny equal treatment under the law to a minority group.

Nick, The outright lie is to claim marriage has not been re-defined. Either you did not read the California opinion or are merely ignoring that even the majority admitted that in California marriage has since day one been defined to be between a man and a woman.

Quoting directly from the majority opinion:

From the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman. Article XI, section 14 of the California Constitution of 1849 — California’s first Constitution provided explicit constitutional protection for a “wife’s separate property and the marriage statute adopted by the California Legislature during its first session clearly assumed that the marriage relationship necessarily involved persons of the opposite sex . . .

Although the California statutes governing marriage and family relations have undergone very significant changes in a host of areas since the late 19th century, the statutory designation of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman has remained unchanged.

Make no mistake. The California Supreme Court, by one vote redefined 200 years of marriage, and it did so making up California Constitutional Law and rights never before seen in California. This is not about equal rights. The decision did not grant additional rights. It attempted to legitimize a sinful lifestyle by conferring upon it the title of marriage, and made up constitutional protections in an attempt to enshrine it into law.

I’m sorry, Guy, but you’re simply much too taken in by the propaganda to have a conversation on this topic. James Dobson, the late Jerry Falwell, and their ilk have chosen the “changing the definition of marriage” mantra to manipulate an uneducated public. The LDS church has simply chosen to parrot the evangelical anti-gay rhetoric, often verbatim. In the end, you’ve fallen for it, and evidently lost the ability to think for yourself at all on this subject. Since all you can do is repeat the evangelical propaganda ad nauseum, I’ll skip your “middle man” performance.

I also noticed that the ProtectMarriage coalition lists over 50 churches united to help bring about passage of the amendment. It is curious to see no listing for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Only a mention of Meridian Magazine.

Yes, but if it contradicts revealed truth then chances are it isn’t light.

Indeed.

We do what we have to do. Look on the bright side, you can be an Anti-Nephi-Lehi as long as you have plenty of Nephites around to protect you.

I don’t need your protection. You miss my point entirely! You still cannot see that our warfare today is aggressive, offensive, NOT defensive. I would appreciate you lay off the condescension.

In the end we’ll all hopefully be in heaven together, but in the meantime we’ll each do what we were made to do.

What we are made to do? Are you saying some are made to be violent? And they’ll still get into heaven? What if gays are “made” that way? Would they still get into heaven if they do what they are made to do? Why do you exclude gays and not violent types?

Attractive, rich, or lucky heterosexuals yes. But just because you desire the opposite sex, doesn’t mean that God has blessed you with the qualities that ensure that the opposite sex wants you back.

I don’t see how that answers my point. Heterosexuals are allowed a way out, a method to express their desires without being called sinners. This is marriage. Heterosexuals can express their love with the act of sex without being called sinners in marriage. Homosexuals will never be given this reprieve. They will live their whole lives under the threat of being called a sinner over feelings they had little to no choice in making. Of course life is unfair, and these millions of men and women will just have to suffer.

You’re clearly a romantic, but sexual attraction is not needed in order to express love. Even in the worst case, with no sex, they can still have love, solace, and comfort in one another. That is not a life of misery, and a desire to avoid it is no excuse for sin.

Indeed, and that is a rather romantic notion too, Aluwid. But it doesn’t reflect reality. If you told heterosexuals that they can express their love without the use of sex, how many would actually be able to handle that for their entire lives? What’s the number, Aluwid?

We all have to choose. It doesn’t really matter whether the First Presidency has sufficiently explained themselves to you or anyone else in particular in order for their counsel to be the right counsel.

It does matter. We are told to think for ourselves, to gain a full knowledge of the world around us. This would include getting more information from the prophet over what his position is on this or that issue. It is not too much to ask, Guy.

I’m sorry, Guy, but you’re simply much too taken in by the propaganda to have a conversation on this topic.

I see–I’m the one taken in by the propaganda? OK. That still doesn’t address the fact that the gay community is seeking to re-define marriage–and that the California Supreme Court acknowledged that marriage in California from day one was defined as between a man and a woman. No matter what names you call me–that fact will never change.

James Dobson, the late Jerry Falwell, and their ilk have chosen the “changing the definition of marriage” mantra to manipulate an uneducated public.

I could care less about these fellows. I’m responding to a specific request by prophets, seers, and revelators–that’s it.

In the end, you’ve fallen for it, and evidently lost the ability to think for yourself at all on this subject.

Sure, Nick. That describes me exactly. I am a Bible thumping, mantra memorizing born again, evangelical without a brain—you just keep on thinking there Nick–that must be what you’re good at. Your comments and your mentality is exactly what I described in this post.

Stephen B.

Good points. I don’t know why that is. Frankly, I’m not thrilled with many of the theological leanings, teachings or politics of the individuals and churches listed on that website. I also noticed the Catholic Church is not listed, and I know they are also involved. Perhaps this is not really the “official” website–but it’s what I found. I really don’t know why it lists what it does, and excludes others. But, my personal preferences and comfort level is not really the issue here.

Dan

It does matter. We are told to think for ourselves, to gain a full knowledge of the world around us. This would include getting more information from the prophet over what his position is on this or that issue. It is not too much to ask, Guy.

And in the end we still have to choose–regardless of whether we personally feel the prophets, seers, and revelators whose job it is to guide the Church and establish its spiritual doctrines and teachings have specifically and adequately explained themselves to our own personal satisfaction.

Nick,
It’s a matter of logic, not propaganda. When you change the legal meaning of a word you redefine it. You must concede that the legal definition of marriage has never included same sex partnerships. Now the legal definition of marriage in California does include same sex partnerships. The legal definition of marriage has changed. It has been redefined. There’s no way around it.

You’re always playing the victim here saying that people are trying to force their religious practices on society. That’s not the case. The anti-SSM contingent is trying to prevent a dramatic change to a long-standing civil institution. It’s the pro-SSM contingent, motivated by a desire for social validation, that is the aggressor here. That fact doesn’t mean that they’re wrong or that they don’t have a case for the change they want to force. But it is a fact and it does mean that you don’t get to characterize the situation as one of people trying to force their religious practices on society. It’s convenient for you to frame it that way because it gives you the moral standing of victim, but it’s incorrect.

After you’ve read through this interesting post and comments, hundreds of God’s children have died from preventable diseases and from hunger.

According to the World Health Organzation’s estimates, 242,000 measles deaths occurred in 2006: this translates to about 663 deaths every day or 27 deaths every hour. The United Nations estimates that over 6 million children die of malnutrition every year.

The Saints “best efforts”, including the money the Church will spend on political lobbying against SSM, could be used more productively to save these childrens’ lives.

The Saints “best efforts”, including the money the Church will spend on political lobbying against SSM, could be used more productively to save these childrens’ lives.

Apparently the leaders of the LDS Church do not share your opinion of the most productive use of resources.

Your argument seems to be that as long as Problem A exists, the Church has no business addressing Problem B. I find that argument specious, for several reasons.

First, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. In other words, we can address problems abroad while resisting destructive policies at home. (It is interesting that you should mention measles, considering that the LDS is heavily involved in eradicating that disease.)

Second, we have a duty to keep our own house in order even as we seek to help others clean up theirs.

Third, as I suggest in Post #22, widespread acceptance of homosexual “marriage” could greatly limit the Church’s freedom to act in the world. I fail to see how even one hungry child would be helped if BYU were to lose its accreditation.

One more point: I sustain the president of the Church and the other general authorities as prophets. What that means is that I expect them to seek inspiration to guide the Church—including the best way to spend the Church’s resources. Although I may occasionally disagree with the leaders of the Church, I consider them to be men of high principle who generally have my best interests at heart. I have no such confidence in those who push “same-sex marriage.”

That is simply not the case, and in fact qualifies as a scare tactic. The Supreme Court already ruled on this topic in the 1980s in a case where the LDS Church fired a janitor from the Deseret Gym for failing to adhere to religious standards. The court ruled for the Church. It will continue to be able to fire people from BYU for a same-sex marriage.

I’m not sure that trying to portray the First Presidency as uncaring toward children, disease and hunger is either accurate or necessarily helpful. It is, however, a clever use of sophistry. It also misses the point, which is will we do as they ask? Or, will we think our own wisdom and understanding is greater, and not do what they ask? As I said to Dan, we all get to choose.

a random John,

I vaguely remember the case about the janitor. As I recall he failed to maintain a temple recommend, and was fired from his job. Please correct me if I am mistaken; however, assuming that to the be fact pattern, I see a huge difference between the janitor case and one potentially involving SSM.

Now that CA’s supreme court has created a new constitutionally protected class of individuals (gays) and created a brand new fundamental right (gay marriage) it is difficult to predict what affect that will have on future fact patterns, such as the one PK suggested.

The janitor case you referenced I don’t think implicated a fundamental right. Now that the CA supreme court has created this new right, how will future discrimination be handled involving SSM “married” couples? Will Utah even be required to give full faith a credit to CA gay marriages? I don’t know. If so, can other institutions, i.e. BYU or the Church discriminate based on these marriages? I don’t know.

At the very least there is likely to be a great deal of future litigation in these cases. To say the Supreme Court has already ruled on this topic, is at best, I think a leap of faith.

That is simply not the case, and in fact qualifies as a scare tactic. The Supreme Court already ruled on this topic in the 1980s in a case where the LDS Church fired a janitor from the Deseret Gym for failing to adhere to religious standards. The court ruled for the Church. It will continue to be able to fire people from BYU for a same-sex marriage.

You appear to have missed my point; perhaps I was not clear in expressing my concerns.

No doubt the LDS Church will continue to be free to hire and fire employees based on religious criteria, just as the Church will continue to be free not to perform homosexual marriages.

The question is, will Church-related institution such as BYU be able to retain their tax-exempt status and accreditation if they deny admission and employment based on religious criteria?

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Bob Jones University could be denied tax-exempt status because of the school’s policies forbidding interracial dating and marriage. It is not hard to imagine similar outcome for BYU if homosexual marriage were ever to become legal in the United States.

BYU could survive without the tax exemption. (Bob Jones is still around.) However, the loss of accreditation would be far more serious.

Consider the situation of BYU’s law school. The American Bar Association expressly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in both admissions and employment, and may withhold accreditation from law schools that violate those policies.

Currently, the BYU law school is able to claim that it abides by the ABA and AALS standards:

As a law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA), and as a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS), the J. Reuben Clark Law School provides equal opportunity in legal education for all persons, including faculty and employees with respect to hiring, continuation, promotion and continuing faculty status, applicants for admission, enrolled students, and graduates, without discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability. Because of the Law School’s religious affiliation and purpose, ABA standards and AALS regulations as applied to the Law School require equal opportunity on the basis of sexual orientation but not on the basis of conduct. All members of the Law School community are required to comply with the Brigham Young University Honor Code, which requires chastity outside of marriage and fidelity in marriage. . . . .

The BYU Law School makes two arguments: First, that there is no restriction on the basis of sexual orientation but only on behavior. Hence, a person who considers himself gay but who does not engage in homosexual acts may be admitted or employed by the Law School.

The second argument is the policy does not discriminate because it applies equally to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

The first line of defense rests on shaky ground. Some judges have already rejected the idea that there is a meaningful distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual conduct.

The second line of defense falls if gay marriage is legalized. BYU would then have two choices. One would be to treat legal homosexual marriages as the same as traditional marriages. The other would be to amend the Honor Code to explicitly exclude homosexual marriages.

Both options present difficulties to the Church. The leaders and members of the Church are probably not prepared to recognize homosexual marriages as valid. Failure to do so, however, would put BYU at odds with the accreditation agencies.

The same First Amendment rights you cite come from the divinely inspired US Constitution. This is the same Constitution that also holds the equal protection provision that appear in the CA constitution and which the Republican-appointed conservative Justices found to be violated by any attempt to single out one segment of the population ie gays for discrimination.

No doubt same sex marriage runs counter to LDS teaching and will be uncomfortable for Mormons but that doesn’t make it right for the church to insert itself into a movement to enshrine discrimination into the CA or any other constitution.

It’s disgraceful. It’s overreaching. It’s an insult to what Joseph Smith said about the US Constitution.

#38:
Given the apparent inability of so many BYU law graduates to comprehend any legal argument that isn’t determined by LDS theological declarations, I’m not convinced that the school shouldn’t lose it’s accreditation.

In 2000 I very actively and publicly opposed Proposition 22 in California, the first “protect marriage” act in CA. It was a life-changing experience for me. I’m thrilled to see so many challenging the church’s position this time. There were so few of us in 2000 and the actions that church leaders took against me were painful and resulted in my decision to no longer be part of the church. However, I have never regretted my decision to stand for what I believed was right and to campaign publicly against the proposition. My recommendations to those who choose to oppose the church’s position–be united in what you do. Find others that feel the same way and work together. Also, seek out your local United Church of Christ. Most of these congregations are “open and affirming” (which means that they welcome GLBT families and individuals). Odds are that they will have GLBT families in their midst. Nothing changes one’s viewpoint more on this issue that getting to know the individuals and families that are impacted by this. They will probably be able to support you and answer questions that you might have. They are not going to try to convert you. They are big on social justice issues and love to find allies to work with.
Hopefully this time around, things will be different!

Given the apparent inability of so many BYU law graduates to comprehend any legal argument that isn’t determined by LDS theological declarations, I’m not convinced that the school shouldn’t lose it’s accreditation.

Do you have any evidence to support your criticism of BYU law graduates, or are you simply engaging in gratuitous bigotry?

It’s my understanding, P.K., that the author of this post is a graduate of the J. Reuben Clark Law School. (He can correct me, of course, if he graduated elsewhere.) He’s an excellent example of the phenomenon I criticize, given that whenever this topic comes up, he puts on a huge performance as if it’s entirely beyond human comprehension that a court could rule differently than what LDS would dictate. I’m not saying he needs to agree. Rather, I’m saying that he needs to figure out that the law is not entirely defined by LDS declarations, and reasonable minds can actually interpret the law differently.

We could look to several other examples of BYU law grads (especially, but not limited to, politicians), as evidenced by various comments they’ve made to Utah media. That, of course, would be a tremendous threadjack.

Guy, all I’m saying is that I’ve never heard a letter from the FP read over the pulpit telling us to call our elected representatives and ask them to increase funding for food aid or for the immunizations. I guess I’m also saying that I think these issues (saving the lives of God’s children) are just as important as expressing our concerns about same-sex marriage.

The Church’s political organization against same sex marriage seems disproportionate considering the Church has not similiarly organized its members to speak out politically and act against poverty and hunger.

The J. Reuben Clark Law School is ranked in the Top 50 of the nation’s law schools. That does not square with your impression that BYU’s law school provides a substandard legal education. In short, you have offered no objective reason to believe that the law school should lose accreditation over the quality of its program.

But tell me, do you think that BYU’s law school deserves to lose its accreditation over the LDS Church’s stand on homosexuality?

I’ve never heard a letter from the FP read over the pulpit telling us to call our elected representatives and ask them to increase funding for food aid or for the immunizations.

Nor have I. But, should that occasion ever arise, I assume you would agree that it would be within their religious purview to issue such a moral call to arms. Frankly, if the First Presidency were to read such a letter, no one would be more pleased than I; however, I don’t think the fact they have not made any such pronouncement disqualifies them from entering the moral debate over marriage and sexuality as they have at this time.

I guess I’m also saying that I think these issues (saving the lives of God’s children) are just as important as expressing our concerns about same-sex marriage.

I would not argue with you here; however, for whatever reason they have seen fit at this time to issue the call they have. I don’t think that means the FP is any less concerned about saving lives or alleviating suffering. The fact is, of course, that the Church is very heavily involved in humanitarian efforts. And, I know that you are aware of this. I also understand that you and I have a fundamental legal difference on this issue, and that we likely see it through different moral lenses as well.

The Church’s political organization against same sex marriage seems disproportionate considering the Church has not similarly organized its members to speak out politically and act against poverty and hunger.

Perhaps it does. If I were running the Church, I don’t know whether I would have made the same call on issuing this particular letter. This is a battle the Church has already waged here in California–and I think they paid a high political and public relations price–as they likely will again (judging just from some comments on this thread). I don’t necessarily understand why the Church did not issue the same call in MA. But, the fact my understanding is limited and by its very nature incomplete is really of little consequence. For me the single issue now is whether I will agree to do as I have been asked, or not. My personal preferences just don’t really matter. I don’t run the Church, and the Brethren don’t check in with me on how they should run it (rightly so I might add).

ECS, I have heard you make the comment about church leaders not asking us to act to help alleviate suffering and hunger. I see quite the opposite. For example:

-Pres. Eyring in his most recent talk spoke clearly about how the Atonement leads people to help and serve specifically by relieving suffering. Clearly there was a reminder that Christian love requires this kind of help and service.

-After recent catastrophes, lds.org’s top headline was an invitation to donate to help.

-Built into our donation slips are opportunities to donate to humanitarian and education funds that help the poor and needy — a constant reminder of the importance of that need.

-The Church has specific missions just to help with welfare needs all over the world…and leaders are constantly reminding couples of that responsibility and opportunity.

– We are told repeatedly in talks about the importance of helping those in need.

– Efforts to serve and help are regularly recognized in church magazines, general conference, and online, thus reinforcing how much this matters to us, keeping that importance ever-present.

In a sense, we don’t need a FP letter to remind us of the importance of caring about the poor and needy. That message is built into the fabric of the Church’s structure, organization, doctrine, service opportunities, regular teachings, and even the website!

We also don’t need to be convinced of the moral and doctrinal need to help the poor and needy because we all already agree on that. Obviously, members don’t agree on this issue in CA. This issue is also an immediate, short-term need that requires immediate action. We will always have the poor among us, and so short of having FP letters come every month (week?), it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to expect that kind of constant reminder, particularly when we have so many other reminders. Having a letter reiterating the importance of this particular issue when it’s on the ballot I think makes sense. But I just don’t think there is any logical basis to imply that the leaders don’t also care about alleviating suffering and helping those in need.

Your comments in 25, 41 and 44 rise to new levels of absurdity. You can malign me all you want. That doesn’t strengthen your legal or moral position in this discussion. And, frankly your comments don’t surprise me at all coming from one who defines his entire existence by his “perceived sexuality.”

Guy, so far as I can tell, you simply refuse to entertain the thought that an opinion that differs from yours might have any strength or validity at all. As for my comment #44, the most I’ve ever seen you express a legal opinion that wasn’t manufactured at LDS HQ was during your excellent coverage of the FLDS travesty in Texas.

Heck, you’ve even jumped blogs tonight, for the sole purpose of selectively quoting an excerpt from the California Supreme Court, and then calling me a liar for quoting the part that didn’t happen to support your position. You seem to be a very angry individual, Guy. In your religious zeal to fight your “perceived enemy,” you’re losing sight of basic integrity.

Heck, you’ve even jumped blogs tonight, for the sole purpose of selectively quoting an excerpt from the California Supreme Court, and then calling me a liar for quoting the part that didn’t happen to support your position. You seem to be a very angry individual, Guy. In your religious zeal to fight your “perceived enemy,” you’re losing sight of basic integrity.

I’ve never heard a letter from the FP read over the pulpit telling us to call our elected representatives and ask them to increase funding for food aid or for the immunizations.

Why would the First Presidency write such a letter? Church leaders have long been leery of government-run welfare programs, preferring private and religious charity instead.

As m&m pointed out to you, the LDS Church as an institution and Mormons as individuals are heavily involved in caring for the poor and needy. Perhaps we don’t call on our elected representatives to do more as you suggest. However, political action is not necessarily the best way to address social ills.

[…] Politics, Pop Culture, Same Sex Marriage | Well, OK Sunday came and went and we in California got the call. I suspect Bishops all over California read the First Presidency letter in Sacrament Meeting […]

NOTE: In my earlier comments, I accused Guy of selectively quoting from the California Supreme Court’s decision, in an effort to avoid acknowledging that the court stated that the law “clearly assumed” that marriage was a heterosexual relationship. Guy, as he notes, protested this. I’ve gone back to re-read, and I see that I was absolutely wrong in my original reading of Guy’s comment. While he denied what I see as the effect of that language, he absolutely did include the wording in his quoted excerpt.

Guy, as much as we may disagree, it was not my intention to misrepresent you. I was wrong in this case, and I hope you can accept my apology for falsely accusing you.

[…] Church, Liberty, Marriage, Politics, Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage | My last two posts, here and here, now quite some time ago dealt with the First Presidency letter read in Sacrament meetings […]

The victim stance needs to stop. You speak of LDS being subject to riducule as you stomp on others rights and subject them to riducle. You speak of protecting our right to free exercise of religion, NOTHING about gay people marrying affects our right to marriage or to be married in the temple. What about other people’s free exercise? What about peoples rights and views that differ from the LDS perspective? LDS people can live in the world and not of the world, let other people live to the dictates of their own conscience. Maybe the church should start putting money where it matters: protecting the millions of unborn children who are murdered every year–or is that issue just not “fun” anymore? Or does issues of life and death not warrant time, means and talent?